11-Year-Old Boy Fights Off Mom’s Attacker With BB Gun
In Bellingham, Washington, a 45-year-old man was renting a room in the home of a single mother. Yesterday, he came home drunk and decided his room “had been messed with,” so he attacked the woman, kicking open her bedroom door and choking her in bed.
Enter our young hero, who was awoken by the commotion. First, he hit the attacker with a board. This got the attacker’s attention, who then chased the boy out of the house. The boy snuck back inside and locked the attacker outside. The attacker began climbing into an open window as the woman tried to close it, so he grabbed her arm and threatened to kill both of them.
She was unable to free herself, but Young Hero came into the room with his Daisy air rifle and shot the attacker “at least four times.”
Now the bad news, or what Cam Edwards of NRA News would call “The Deal of the Day.” (I just heard Cam featuring the boy as Hero of the Day, and rightly so. You can watch it by clicking on Show Archives, scrolling down and selecting Hero of the Day, 2:04:00 into Tuesday’s show.)
Police called the attacker a “frequent flyer,” because he’s “somebody they have had nearly 50 contacts with and who has been arrested dozens of times over the last ten years or so.”
This includes “a history of arrests for DWI, assault, and disorderly conduct.” Despite threatening to kill both victims, when the attacker left the hospital he was charged with “second-degree assault and two counts of harassment.”
Nevertheless, both the boy’s act of self-defense and the government’s inability to control a longtime criminal point to the need for a strong and liberal interpretation of the Second Amendment.
visions of ralpie parker and black bart are stirring
Go, Ralphie!!!!!!!!!
I’d like to chip in and make the kid’s next gun a 357 Mag. It should only require one squeeze of the trigger to protect your mom.
I will chip in as well.
Better make it a 12ga. 11 year olds are forbidden from owning handguns.
Eleven year olds may own handguns, or long guns. One must have reached the age of 18 in order to buy a long gun from a dealer, and reached the age of 21 to buy a handgun from a dealer.
Possession in public is another issue. The under age possessor must either be with a parent or guardian, or have in their possession a letter from a parent or guardian giving permission, and must be with an adult.
Of course, this goes out the window in their own home, where it is up to the parent or guardian as to what the under age person may do. As a child of nearly 8 I got my first .22 rifle, and a few years later a .410 shotgun. By 11 or 12 I could take out any of my father’s guns, mostly a Remington 1100 12 gauge shotgun, an EARLY Colt AR-15 and an M1 Garand.
Once I turned 16, I had permission to take any of them to the Izaak Walton League of America Chapter where I could shoot all I wanted. Of course, the law has become more restrictive. Personally, I believe that if a child is responsible and can get to the range on his own he should be allowed by law. It should be up to the parent or guardian.
Having taught children how to shoot, I have to ask you: Have you ever had a child shoot a .357?
First problem: 12 pound trigger pull on a standard double action revolver. Way to heavy for a small person.
Second problem: Recoil on a .357 is heavier than on a modern striker-fire 9mm semi-automatic pistol like a Springfield XDm. True even if you buy a .357 SIG semi-auto. Not good planting a hammer in a kid’s forehead.
Ammunition for the 9mm is cheaper, too. So it’s easier to afford practice time. Reloading the pistol is far easier, so more time can be spend honing shooting skills instead of loading skills. Dry firing drills with a semi-auto are far more rewarding, too, especially partner drills where you practice set/reset drills to increase trigger pull speed while maintaining trigger control and sight picture.
The best recommendation would be to step an 11-year-old up to a .22 pistol and get him used to some recoil while honing his motor skills, to prepare him for a true self-defense pistol.
In any case, it’s up to the boy’s mom. Here’s hoping she appreciates what her son did and encourages his natural aptitudes to be a good sheepdog.
Howard, been there done that and you are right on. All the kids in our family gp through this routine.
Bravo the kid! Red Ryder would approve, and say ‘good shot’.
This kid is 11? He’s ready for an upgrade. Might I suggest a Remington 870 youth 20 gauge. Only takes one shot, and the aim doesn’t need to be quite accurate.
Of course if the mom’s arm is being held by the attacker, shoot him with the Daisy until he lets go of Mom, then give him the real BB gun.
If the mom was leaning away from guns for her little guy, I’ll bet she’s leaning 2nd amendment now.
Someone get that kid and his mom into a gun safety class and some time at the range.
Yes, the kid is ready for an upgrade and your suggestion is a good one. A 20 guage pump shotgun is quite manageable for both the boy and his mother. In addition to helping them get the firearm, I’d chip in to get them some good instruction, ammo and range time. We want them to be able to successfully defend themselves from this piece of human garbage.
And a tenant who’s not a drunken thug.
Mr. Nemerov, I am confident that you will agree that you misspoke. We do not need a strong and liberal interpretation of the second amendment, rather a literal one. It isnt vague or cryptic, does not require legal scholars to interpret; it is crystal clear. Not taking it at face value and trying to ‘interpret’ it is where the problem lies. ( no pun intended)
Yeah, that’s a good way to put it. Keep in mind that I like to Alinsky the ‘liberal’ message, which is really an attempt to use cutesy words to convince us to return us to feudalism. Therefore, when compared to the unique, liberal approach of our Founders, modern liberals aren’t liberal at all.
In this case, a liberal interpretation uses the definition of liberal that means such things as: “given or provided in a generous and openhanded way” and “not bound by authoritarianism.”
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberal
In other words, the right to keep and bear arms should be interpreted to mean the broadest ability for law-abiding citizens to do so: e.g. owning whatever’s used by the military that can be carried unaided; open carry; concealed carry; carrying in government buildings.
Another way to look at it is that citizens are regulated in a generous and openhanded way by a government that understands it is proscribed from infringing upon our rights. For example, the fact that you have a .45 on your hip at the mall is irrelevant, but people using guns against other law-abiding citizens for violent purposes are vulnerable to deadly force in self-defense, as well as legal consequences should they survive that long.
As it stands now, this story highlights the modern liberal interpretation of the law, which is to treat the law-abiding citizens harshly regarding right to keep and bear arms, but to act generously and openhanded towards repeat, recidivist criminals. But that’s part of the feudalism formula: use criminals to ‘prove’ that the problems is guns, not people making bad choices requiring consequences. Criminals are the modern liberals’ best friends.
I did understand your use of the word liberal, just suggesting that we go further and use the literal meaning of the amendment. Anything else is merely getting sucked into the slimy semantic games of the left. We should stop playing along in their game and make our own rules; the second amendment is the supreme law of the land, it says what it means and means what it says and is written in plain, everyday language. That language is not open to having ordinary words re-defined or simple concepts distorted.
You are dead on in pointing out that the left uses crime to justify emasculation of the bill of rights. In your example I suspect the gentleman involved is mentally ill, and we have not heard the last of him. He will be a chronic problem for as long as he lives. Letting creeps like him out onto the streets creates a certainty of more crime. Not only will the leftists go soft on criminals, they will even go so far as to actively create a crime problem to do so ( Fast and Furious ). A good counter strategy is for us to hold their feet to the fire ( all officials, not just the left ) with regards to prosecuting crime. By that i mean not using a heavy hand but a steady one. Getting the public to become engaged requires an educated public. That is your job, and you do it well. For that you have our gratitude. Getting other journalists on board is more difficult.
I bet he’s thinking that prison rape is going to be more painful than a bb gun.
LOL Owned.
I don’t understand why the attacker was free to walk the streets. Who screwed up?
What a difference a border makes!
I’m Canadian and while it is possible to own long guns in this country, it is very difficult indeed to get a handgun permit. Also, using a gun is much more likely to get the gun owner in trouble than whoever he is defending himself from.
A case I remember fairly well happened in Toronto fifteen or twenty years ago. The head of the police commission, Norm Gardiner, who had received a number of death threats during his time in that job, was one of the handful of Canadians that was actually permitted to own and carry a concealed handgun. He owned and operated a bakery in addition to his duties with the police commission. One day, while working in his store, someone came in and tried to rob one of his cashiers. The robber started assaulting the cashier to obtain her cooperation. I believe the robber had either a gun or knife but don’t recall which. Gardiner drew his handgun and wounded the robber. I believe he was able to keep him in the store until police arrived to arrest him.
The firestorm of protest was unbelievable. I’m not talking about people outraged about the robbery attempt; I’m talking about people outraged that Gardiner used a gun to defend his own employee! You’d have thought that Gardiner was a mass murderer after a spree killing based on the outcry.
I wish I could remember more details of the case but this happened in the pre-Internet days and I’m not finding anything online about this specific incident. I know he continued to serve the police commission for several more years so I know he was not actually convicted on anything in this clear case of self-defense. If the Left had had their way though, he probably would have been sent to jail for life. Considering that Toronto was very much dominated by the Left in those days, I’m surprised Gardiner got through this incident.
I should also mention that some cities in this country are VERY strict about gun use. I called my local police some years ago just to make sure there would be no problem with operating an air pistol that shoots tiny .177 pellets in my own basement and was informed that there was a city bylaw forbidding the discharge of guns within city limits, even guns as small as a pellet gun. There may be a shooting range somewhere in town that is exempt but that may just be wishful thinking on my part. Basically, I can own an air pistol and even transport it in my car without any kind of permits since it has such a small caliber and low muzzle velocity; I just can’t fire it anywhere in town, least of all on my own property. “Real” guns, of course, are a much different animal: apparently, we need permits to buy, own and transport them.